Ah, nice -- Barack Obama under attack from Morton Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America, the group that provides the right-wing alternative to AIPAC that the United States so desperately needs. In addition to urging you to vote against Obama, ZOA wants you to boycott coca-cola. Klein, and other Israel hawks, apparently object to Obama's self-consciously inoffensive themes that hope is good and cynicism is bad.
« When I Think of Rudy... | Main | Politics of Resentment, NEA/AFT Edition »
The Right Enemies
19 Mar 2007 12:31 pm
Comments (50)
I didn't about the ZOA move to boycott Coke; that's pretty hilarious. This brief history of competing Coke-related boycotts in the Middle East is also amusing.
So Obama's going to lead a purge from the Dem party of everyone who isn't to the left of the IPF on Israel? Sure. Then maybe Godot will turn up one of these days.
Re M.J. Rosenberg
Gee, Mr. otto thinks that M. J. Rosenberg, one of Americas leading Arab lovers, is a settler-enabling Israel activist. Mr. otto sounds like David Duke in drag. If M. J. Rosenberg is unacceptable to Mr. otto, then the only Jew in the US who would be acceptable is Norman Finkelstein.
I find Rosenberg cloying, but if he is too far to the right on I/P, I'm off the charts. Apparently, otto wants a lot of new Republicans.
On every Israel thread, the chance that SLC will randomly bring in Finklestein for no real reason is 100%. A little obsessed much? Also, what is wrong with being an "Arab lover?" Is this a parody? The only people who find being an "Arab lover" and an "Israeli lover" to be mutually exclusive are people who wish to doom Israel to an eternity of death and conflict with its neighbors. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who served in the Israeli military once cried for joy when she saw an Arab imam had a copy of the Torah placed next to a copy of the Qur'an on his mantle. Is such "Arab-loving" and "Israeli-loving" really something we need less of?
This post is hilarious if you excerpt the last sentence and pretend it's about Ezra.
Also, did ZOA name itself in an effort to tweak anti-ZOG nuts on the Left?
How does this end up hurting Obama? Clinton is clearly the hawkiest candidate both in general and with regard to Israel in particular. I don't see Obama really competing with her on that front. He does, however, need to fend off a serious challenge to his left, I think, in the person of John Edwards, in order to go one-on-one against Clinton, a fight I think he wins. And all these AIPAC and related attacks will only boost his standing with those lefties who currently support Edwards.
Also, did ZOA name itself in an effort to tweak anti-ZOG nuts on the Left?
No, ZOA's super-old; predating Israel itself by quite some time. Back in the day it was the mainstream Zionist group in the United States. When Britain was still running the area, they were advocates for Jewish emigration to Palestine from Europe, for the creation of an independent state in the Jewish-populated areas, etc. Sometime between the actual establishment of Israel and today it's become a bit of a crank outfit.
MJ Rosenberg and friends have done a very effective job of bamboozling progressives into thinking any Israel supporters to the right of him are essentially right-wing Zionist nut-jobs who oppose a two-state solution, want endless war with the Arabs and label anyone who disagrees with them as anti-Semites. Morton Klein thankfully reminds everybody what a right-wing Zionist wingnut really looks like.
I always have trouble getting my head around AIPAC's role in American politics, since American Jews are overwhelmingly Democratic. Don't get me wrong, I understand AIPAC's influence over insider DC politics. And I certainly understand AIPAC's financial power. But is AIPAC really willing to throw its full weight behind a Republican candidate? Wouldn't this be incredibly damaging to AIPAC's credibility among American Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democratic? Doesn't AIPAC work really hard to maintain at least the illusion of non-partisanship for this very reason?
If I worked for Obama, I'd encourage him to call AIPAC's bluff. Let AIPAC know: you can support the GOP candidate, Obama will appeal to American Jews directly, and let the chips fall where they may. The end result, I suspect, would involve Obama securing the American Jewish vote by an extremely comfortable margin...with AIPAC's reputation among American Jews taking a significant hit based on its close allegiance with the GOP.
The question is: would AIPAC retain its current level of support among American Jews if it became a Republican organization?
For example...imagine if there was a powerful, conservative African American lobbying group out there. Let's say it's an Evangelical group which sought to blend advocacy for traditional African American issues with a socially conservative message. Now imagine if this group's basic strategy involved making common cause with socially conservative Republicans while pressuring Democrats to adopt more conservative positions on things like gay marriage. Not too hard to imagine, right? But what would happen if this fictional group decided to support the Republican candidate in the 2008 election? They would lose all credibility in the black community, right?
I think AIPAC is in a similar position. It's power is derived from the perception that it influences both Republicans and Democrats. If it were to become a purely Republican organization, I feel like American Jews would turn against it. Of course, I could be way off base here.
I think owenz is right, and for that reason I don't think AIPAC will use the same strategy if Obama makes it through to the general.
What's so bad about MJ Rosenberg?
ZOA wants you to boycott coca-cola.
But, wait, conservatives are already boycotting Pepsi. What ever am I to do???
I guess I'll have to forget soda and crack open a Miller Lite. Damn!
If I worked for Obama, I'd encourage him to call AIPAC's bluff. Let AIPAC know: you can support the GOP candidate, Obama will appeal to American Jews directly, and let the chips fall where they may.
The problem with that advice to Obama is that he isn't the Democratic candidate yet. AIPAC donors can just go support some other Dem if they don't feel comfortable with him.
Also, candidates who get the nomination don't suddenly stop needing to raise funds from wealthy donors whose support might be available to them. Powerful donors don't need to throw their support explicitly to the other side to damage a campaign; they can just sit on their wallets.
"...the right-wing alternative to AIPAC"
Isn't that an oxymoron?
"AIPAC donors can just go support some other Dem if they don't feel comfortable with him."
I don't think fundraising is going to be a serious issue for Obama.
The way AIPAC can threaten Obama is to paint him as a neophyte whose pronouncements about Israel/Palestine are simply naive (the Politico article Matt linked to is exactly an example of that).
In fact, this is where much of AIPAC's power comes from: not from money, but from their ability to marginalize those who disagree with them, so those who don't take their hard line are painted as politically unviable extremists.
Just to clarify: I don't think AIPAC paints candidates that way all by themselves. I do think, though, that there are a number of pundits, lobbyists, politicians, etc., who effectively strangle debate by doing just that. And no, they're not all Jewish, and it isn't a cabal.
"In fact, this is where much of AIPAC's power comes from: not from money, but from their ability to marginalize those who disagree with them, so those who don't take their hard line are painted as politically unviable extremists."
But the power to do that stems largely from their importance in the fundraising process. Why else would people kowtow to them?
Besides, the attack on Obama that MY linked to was from ZOA, which really is (as he jokingly, but correctly, said) even more right-wing than AIPAC itself. For instance, AIPAC certainly didn't oppose the Gaza withdrawal once Sharon adopted it as his policy, but ZOA sure did.
"...there are a number of pundits, lobbyists, politicians, etc., who effectively strangle debate by doing just that." (Jim)
This is the Jewish gnat strategy. Whenever any serious Presidential candidate says something mildly correct about Israel/Palestine- a big flurry of gnats begin circling around the horse trying to drive the mare batty. Obama really needs to be proactive now- spraying "Off" before it's too late.
The problem with MJ Rosenberg is that he wants to keep lots of settlers on the land conquered in 1967. He is pro-settlement, and thus nuts. MJ seems left-wing because he offers a public critique of lots of other Israeli lobby activity, but the policies that he advocates are right-wing and settler-enabling themselves. MJ is therefore, sadly, part of the normalisation of Israeli settler chauvinism in American life.
Funny that the right-wing ZOA and the the Colombian workers union have something in common as regards to Coke.
Otto, it's my understanding that the Geneva Accords might let some of the Israeli settlers stay in place--there's supposed to be some compensating land from pre-1967 Israel given to the Palestinians to make up the difference. Is that what you're talking about?
Yes, the combination of keeping Israeli settlers and expelling Israeli arabs from Israel under the guise of 'compensation' under a variety of plans is what I am talking about. It's the sort of plan that panders to Jewish chauvinism and wont possibly 'work' for the future, even if a Palestinian leadership can be found to sign to it, given that Israeli settlers will be scattered around Palestinian East Jerusalem in a completely unworkable way, prompting continual incursions by Israeli forces into Palestinian territories.
ALL the settlers must be removed. It's really very simple.
The 1949 cease-fire line means nothing on the ground where real people live.
Anyone who thinks hundreds of thousands will be ethnically cleansed according to it - is the real nutjob here.
Gee, Mr. otto thinks that M. J. Rosenberg, one of Americas leading Arab lovers
is it just me or is SLC's use of the phrase "arab lover" frighteningly similar to that old Klan stalwart "nigger lover"?
that is, these racists are just exasperated that someone might actually like or care about these subhuman bipeds?
Morton Klein should be deported from the United States. No real right-winger should ever support him.
Join the Conservative Exodus Project
http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/
End the illegal neocon war in Iraq.
Re otto
Mr. otto seems to be somewhat at sea. The settlers are there because the Arabs lost the 1967 war. Thats what happens when you lose a war, just ask the Sudetenland Germans who were forced out of that part of the (now) Czech Republic after WW2 which Germany lost. Or as one might say, winners keepers, losers weepers.
Re Trevor
Mr. Trevor considers something mildly correct on the Israeli/Palestinian to be a statement that the State of Israel should go out of business.
"Mr. otto seems to be somewhat at sea. The settlers are there because the Arabs lost the 1967 war. Thats what happens when you lose a war, just ask the Sudetenland Germans who were forced out of that part of the (now) Czech Republic after WW2 which Germany lost."
Yay for ethnic cleansing! And here I thought that the imperialism of old was bad on its merits. Silly me for not realizing that lebensraum was a good idea. Why don't we go and demand settlements in Japan while we're at it? We won the war, after all. I guess the Palestinians don't matter because they lost the war that somehow they started. Or something. By your logic, if Nasser had won in 1967, it would have been perfectly fine to expel all of the Israeli Jews from Israel, instead of, you know, a disgusting case of ethnic cleansing. But then again, I guess Israel has gained a lot from having those settlements and maintaining an imperial occupation, such as becoming isolated diplomatically and being the victim of numerous suicide bombings while damaging the national psyche of Israel. I guess all those majority of Israelis who hate the settlements and the settlers are just fools as well. It doesn't matter that the settlers don't feel loyality to the contemporary Israeli nation-state but instead to a Biblical Greater Israel because of raison d'etat.
I'd have to see exactly what Rosenberg's viewpoint is before passing judgment on him. I can't find any of these posts on Google, there's too much noise from search terms appearing in the comments.
"But, wait, conservatives are already boycotting Pepsi. What ever am I to do???
I guess I'll have to forget soda and crack open a Miller Lite. Damn!"
Real conservatives know that Coors is the only drink fit for Republican consumption.
Re Reality Man
1. Mr. Reality Man is suffering from delusions. Nobody was ethnically cleansed from the West Bank when the settlements were established.
2. Mr. Reality Man apparently thinks that the Sudetenland Germans were not ethnically cleansed from the Czech Republic in 1945.
3. The ethic cleansing occurred in 1948 when an approximately equal number of Arabs were excluded from what is now Isreal and Jews from various Arab countries were kicked out of their ancestral homes. Of course, the Isreal bashers like Mr. otto and Mr. Reality Man don't count the Jews kicked out of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, etc. After all, being Jews, they don't count, right.
"Mr. Reality Man apparently thinks that the Sudetenland Germans were not ethnically cleansed from the Czech Republic in 1945."
Actually, they fact they were was part of my point. You have poor reading comprehension. You're the one who brought it up in the first place in a discussion of the occupation.
"Of course, the Isreal bashers like Mr. otto and Mr. Reality Man don't count the Jews kicked out of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, etc. After all, being Jews, they don't count, right."
So, unless I mention this in any post, I'm ignoring it? My point was that such activities are horrible whenever they are done, including when it was done to the Jews. When I was pointing out such activities would have taken place if Nasser had won, I was condemning them. However, when you start moving people around to take away a people's right to their land and a nation-state, that is rather analagous to ethnic cleansing to the point some scholars of international law count it as such (as opposed to genoicide, where actually killing often needs to take place). Such activities include the Chinese policy of moving Han Chinese into Tibet to Sinocize Tibet and remove the legitimacy of Tibetan attempts at independence.
You like to put words into people's mouths because you lack reading comprehension and you can only argue against someone by arguing against anti-Semitism, whether real or imagined. I'm not an Israel-basher because I want Israel to remain free and safe, which is one reason why I support their attempts to negotiate peace with Syria. You seem to have no such wishes for Israel than for Israel to go on killing Arabs and never finding peace. You are a liar and a scumbag. Considering how you use the term "Arab lover" like Klansmen used the term "Nigger lover," you're probably a bigot as well.
I guess SLC also considers the large majority of Israelis to be Israel-bashers as well for being against the occupation, the settlements and the settlers. The settlers, however, are actual Israel-bashers who threatened civil war if the Israeli government followed its own national interest by dismantling the settlements. The settlers have no loyalty to Israel. Most Israelis know that land grabs are wrong on their merits. It is imperialism. Jews suffered for centuries at the hands of imperialists and other violence mongers who found land grabs and raison d'etat ok. The majority of Israelis know it is not right to turn around and do something similar. They want to get out of that situation. It has been the fringe right, aided by Americans who have no idea what they are doing, who have been the force behind the occupation. They have no real positive vision for Israel, instead wanting it to act like the realist European states of old. What type of future does that offer Israel? One of death and suffering. Apparently SLC is ok with that.
"Mr. Trevor considers something mildly correct on the Israeli/Palestinian to be a statement that the State of Israel should go out of business." (SLC)
Apparently, Missy SLC didn't read the Soros piece, in fact doesn't pay the slightest bit of attention to what anyone says- because nowhere did Soros, Obama, or gads! myself propose that Israel be put out of business. At this stage in time if advocating for a contiguous and sovereign Palestinian State is too much for you Missy...I don't know what could be said to calm your nerves.
Re Trevor
1. It's Dr. SLC (PhD in elementary particle physics).
Re Reality Man
1. Mr. Reality Man has called me a liar and a scumbag. It is my policy not to respond in kind to personal attacks so Mr. Reality Man is free to take his best shot. I am a believer in the old saw that sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
2. The Arabs don't want peace with Israel and never have. They want to weaken Israel by confining it to indefensible borders so that they can eventually attack and win. At that point we won't be talking about ethnic cleansing by expulsion, we'll be talking about an Eichmann solution which would have occurred in 1967 if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had won the war. Obviously, an Eichmann solution wouldn't trouble Mr. Reality Man in the slightest.
3. Peace talks with Syria are opposed by not only the US but also Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the latter 3 don't trust Olmert, after observing his incompetence in last summers' Lebanon adventure, to not sell out Lebanon. However, since there is going to be a war between Israel and Syria this summer, such peace talks are absurd anyway.
4. If I am not mistaken, and if I am, I am sure Mr. Reality Man will provide a correction, Mr. Reality Man has previously endorsed the notion that all Palestinian refugees and their decedents from 1948 be allowed to return to what is now Israel (he has not endorsed the notion that all Germans and their descendants be allowed to return to the Czech Republic). Since this would have the effect of putting the State of Israel out of business, I think I am justified in making that accusation relative to Mr. Reality Man.
What I find fascinating about SLC is that he's not just a total lunatic, he's a total lunatic and proud of it.
For interested onlookers, he's said before that he's never been to Israel. But he's nonetheless hilariously certain about what "the Arabs" are like (and what they're thinking with the unitary mind they share), and also happy to fight to the last Israeli. If any Israelis think there might be some peace possible with the people they know about because they actually live two miles away from them, SLC is happy to set 'em straight.
More than anything else, he makes me think of someone's Grandpa ranting away in his basement in Idaho about what "the Negroes" are like, and what members of the White Race in New York must do to survive.
1. Mr. Reality Man has called me a liar and a scumbag. It is my policy not to respond in kind to personal attacks so Mr. Reality Man is free to take his best shot. I am a believer in the old saw that sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
You have called me names since the first post you ever made about me. This is why I have made you in particular my bitch. It is how you deal with people who disagree with you. You are also the one who uses phrases like "Arab lovers" like a Klansman. You are a racist.
2. The Arabs don't want peace with Israel and never have. They want to weaken Israel by confining it to indefensible borders so that they can eventually attack and win. At that point we won't be talking about ethnic cleansing by expulsion, we'll be talking about an Eichmann solution which would have occurred in 1967 if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had won the war. Obviously, an Eichmann solution wouldn't trouble Mr. Reality Man in the slightest.
"The Arabs" are not a uniform, unified group. To talk in such terms shows how blind you are that you paint others different from your identity in such broad terms. Jordan's government has moved past trying to win back the Palestinian territories. The Occupation does not provide a real strategic buffer to Israel, in part because it has to be constantly policed because the occupation has spawned terrorism. Once again, you are a racist. Then again, by your logic, I guess the majority of Israelis want to be destroyed because they are against the Occupation and want peace. You're barking at the moon. Most people in both Israel and the Palestinian Terroritories are tired of all of this shit and just want to go on with their lives, but people like you want to lock them into perpetual war. The 1% Doctrine is stupid whether it is implemented by the US or Israel.
3. Peace talks with Syria are opposed by not only the US but also Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the latter 3 don't trust Olmert, after observing his incompetence in last summers' Lebanon adventure, to not sell out Lebanon. However, since there is going to be a war between Israel and Syria this summer, such peace talks are absurd anyway.
Apparently you are privy to the inner thoughts of members of the Israeli and Syrian governments and are not delusional at all! Wouldn't peace talks preventing a war from occuring be favorable? There is little Israel could gain from such a war that wouldn't lay the basis for future conflict. Also, since when are we supposed to kowtow to what Moubarek and the House of Saud want? When Saudi Arabia presented their own peace plan, did you automatically want to embrace it? War is unpredictable by its very nature and wouldn't necessarily turn out well for Israel.
4. If I am not mistaken, and if I am, I am sure Mr. Reality Man will provide a correction, Mr. Reality Man has previously endorsed the notion that all Palestinian refugees and their decedents from 1948 be allowed to return to what is now Israel (he has not endorsed the notion that all Germans and their descendants be allowed to return to the Czech Republic). Since this would have the effect of putting the State of Israel out of business, I think I am justified in making that accusation relative to Mr. Reality Man.
Actually, I am against the right of return to Israel within the 1967 borders. Once again, you show how you delusionaly wail at strawmen instead of actually reading what other people write. You have a set of beliefs you assign to anyone who doesn't agree with you that clouds your ability to actually read views contrary to yours without bringing out your own boogeymen. The conversation you're having isn't actually with me and my actual writings, but with voices in your head.
I have spent too much time attacking actual anti-Semites and having to physically defend Jewish friends of mine from physical attacks from actual anti-Semites to have to take delusional, paranoid shit from little turds like you. What have you done? If you want to make sure Israel still has friends in the world, I would recommend you stop creating strawmen out of people who actually want to see it and the Jewish people in general defended and safe. You do nothing on this forum but show yourself to be racist, paranoid, incompetent and borderline illiterate because you lack reading comprehension.
"For interested onlookers, he's said before that he's never been to Israel. But he's nonetheless hilariously certain about what "the Arabs" are like (and what they're thinking with the unitary mind they share), and also happy to fight to the last Israeli. If any Israelis think there might be some peace possible with the people they know about because they actually live two miles away from them, SLC is happy to set 'em straight."
I wonder what he does when he hears about American Jews who go to visit Israel and bring back stories of Israeli Jews and Arabs eating falafel in delis that just want to move on with their lives. I bet he starts yelling that those Israelis are traitors for wanting actual lives and not living in constant fear like a pussy.
Re ArgleBargle
For Mr. ArgleBargles' information, I don't get my information about the Middle East from reading left wing rags like the Haaretz paper, or from visiting Counterpunch, or reading the screeds of Norman Finkelstein. I get it by reading hard headed realists like Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, who tells it like it is and is absolutely correct and accurate.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879123840&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Re Reality Man
1. I stand corrected as to my claim that Mr. Reality Man favors a right of return for Palestinian refugees. I suspect I may have confused him with Mr. otto; there are so many Israel bashers on this blog that one can become confused as to who proposed what.
2. The preparations being made by Syria for a war this summer have been extensively reported on in the Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews. I also posted a link to a column by Caroline Glick on a previous thread where she discussed this issue. The only way that Isreal could avoid the war would be to either surrender to all Syrian demands or state to the Syrian Government that, beyond question, nuclear weapons will be used against Syrian targets in the event of a war starting.
3. The Palestinians showed their desire for peace with Israel by voting in the terrorist Hamas government. The Palestinians are very fortunate that the late Hafaz Assad is not in charge of the Israeli Government. He knew how to handle terrorists; it's called Hama rules.
4. Apparently, Mr. Reality Man has full confidence in Mr. Olmert to successfully negotiate a peace treaty with Syria without selling out Lebanon. Well, like the rulers of the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, I have no such confidence.
5. Mr. Reality Man terms me a racist. I would not disagree with this description, except that, like my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan says, Dr. SLC is prejudiced against everybody.
I get it by reading hard headed realists like Caroline Glick
You mean this Caroline Glick?
If we accept Bush's definition of the aims of the war, then five years on, the inescapable conclusion is that the US and its allies, such as they are, are losing this war and losing it badly. Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.Israeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.
So rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.
Yup, she's a hardheaded realist all right, if by "hardheaded realist" you mean "frothing lunatic."
The mieskite Caroline Glick wrote a column not long back explaining how the Palestinians enjoyed their suffering and then she mocked their suffering. Just like those crybaby Jews complaining about how mean and nasty those awful, awful Nazis were. Look at her cretinous face and the story's all there. If that's Missy SLC's girl- he'll need to two-bag it.
Re Trevor
1. I don't quite see how Ms. Glicks' personal appearance has anything to do with her opinion pieces. Of course, thats how cheap shot artists like Mr. Trevor behave. They don't have anything substantive to say so they call names and cast aspersions.
2. Of course Mr. Trevor, like all Israel bashers likes to compare the Israelis with the Nazis. As usual, he fails to appreciate that the victims of Hitlers' prejudice had done nothing whatever to provoke it while the Palestinians have engaged in such charming escapades as Kassem firings, kidnappings, and homicide bombings. Mr. Trevor should consider what would be the consequence of actually having Hitler and Eichmann in charge of the Israeli Government. There wouldn't be any Palestinians around to complain about the beastly treatment which they richly merit.
The reason a lot of old-time Democrats are suspicious of Obama is that appeal lies entirely in the fact that he's a smart, hip, young black dude. He hasn't paid his dues. He hasn't worked his way up through the system. He hasn't done favors for anyone and no one has done favors for him. So he isn't tied to any of the old interest groups. It seems possible that he could get elected entirely on the basis of the fact that he's a cool black dude, without owing anybody anything. Which means that he could adopt virtually any policies he pleased. All of the old-line interest groups--blacks, Jews, unions, enviros--have a check list of things they feel they have to have. Obama hasn't signed off on any of them.
Regardless of what the Kos or Pandagon left think, Edwards is not a viable candidate to swing voters such as myself. His union-friendly marxist rhetoric is dated by twenty years and utterly irrelevant to the destruction Bush has caused to America's power and it's citizens' constitutional rights. No factory worker in Ohio wants to vote on longer lunch breaks when the town is on fire.
Plus, something about Edwards's manner calls to mind an ex-wife/ex-husband's bloodsucking divorce lawyer. Not saying he is one, just that appearances are important.
Obama doesn't need to worry about a less-substantial George McGovern in Edwards. The only Democratic threats to him are in the form of Hillary's lies.
"Mr. otto seems to be somewhat at sea. The settlers are there because the Arabs lost the 1967 war. Thats what happens when you lose a war, just ask the Sudetenland Germans who were forced out of that part of the (now) Czech Republic after WW2 which Germany lost. Or as one might say, winners keepers, losers weepers."
Actually that's what used to happen in 1066. Modern, civilized countries aren't supposed to appropriate the land of the losers and displace the population with their own.
As for the Sudetenland, those Germans got there when Germany annexed the Sudetenland a few years prior. More evidence that it is unacceptable for civilized countries to take land by force and move their own citizens in.
I think most people understand the tough position that Israel is in with regards to the West Bank and the Palestinians. But these settlements follow the example of Stalin and the Nazis. Defending them makes it harder to defend Israel.
Re Bob
"As for the Sudetenland, those Germans got there when Germany annexed the Sudetenland a few years prior. More evidence that it is unacceptable for civilized countries to take land by force and move their own citizens in."
Excuse me Mr. Bob. Many of the Sudetenland Germans were descendants of families who had lived there for centuries. That was the whole point of the 1938 crisis over the then Czechoslovika. Hitler claimed that the Sudetenland Germans were being oppressed by the Czech majority. His claim was based on the longevity of the German presence therein. The long time descendant residents were expelled right along with those who migrated there between 1938 and 1945.
SLC,
I enjoy the way you don't have anything to say about the "hardheaded realism" demonstrated in this column by Caroline Glick. Good show!
Re ArgleBargle
Yawn.
Next up: SLC praises the "hardheaded realism" of Lyndon LaRouche.
Excuse me Mr. Bob. Many of the Sudetenland Germans were descendants of families who had lived there for centuries. That was the whole point of the 1938 crisis over the then Czechoslovika.
You actually think Hitler wanted Sudetenland because there were Germans there? Is that also why he wanted Paris, Moscow and London?
Have I got a bridge to sell you!
The Nazis may have used that excuse, but the 1938 "crisis" had no more to do with Germans oppression in Czechoslovakia than the Rape of Nanking had to do with, say, the maddening piety of Japanese women.
You can take the Third Reich at its word, but I say Hitler annexed Sudetenland and artificially augmented its population with ethnic "Germans" (if such a thing exists) simply to expand Germany's borders.
And to see if the world would let him do it.
Either way Israel should be following the example of the United States after a military victory, not the examples of USSR, Baathist Iraq (1991) and Nazi Germany.
If Israel would get rid of those stupid settlements and this annexation nonsense, there would be almost nothing left to criticize the Israelis for and Hamas (and Fatah) would be further exposed for what they are.
As it is, Israel's settlements have given the Arabs an issue that resonates well with people who would otherwise be completely unsympathetic to them.
They want to weaken Israel by confining it to indefensible borders so that they can eventually attack and win.
This is silly. For "the Arabs" to acquire the military sophistication and economic power to defeat the IDF on home turf would require an embrace of science, technology and modernity that would necessarily destroy the motivation for doing so.
You're reading too much FLAME.
Comments closed April 02, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Time again for this photo for those who haven't noticed it before.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjlkMTAyNDk4MGE1YmE5MWM4OWUzNDAxMTA2MjE2N2M=
The important thing is not to get the right-wing, settler-enabling Israel activists out of US politics. That is impossible. The important thing is to get the right-wing, settler-enabling* Israel activists out of the Democratic party. Obama's candidacy may just help it happen.
*Yes, MJ Rosenberg, that includes you.
Posted by otto | March 19, 2007 12:43 PM